Consider, however, what their reaction would be if this was even hinted at in 2004. I think she's just asking why didn't Romney do what the Leftist media would do in a similar situation if the parties were reversed. "Hey, we toss around baseless accusations without any actual evidence all the time. There's nothing wrong with it. Why don't they do it? It works for us."

The problem with impeachment is that it is a political process, not a legal one. Legislators are more interested in protecting their party than in supporting the laws they make. It would take a President committing a major felony (like capital murder, overt treason, or some similarly serious crime) and being caught in the act for it to even conceivably work without the opposition having a Senate supermajority. And even then, it would only work if the President in question was so massively unpopular that he's hurting his own party by remaining in office (and the VP won't be similarly compromised).

We don't live in a parliamentary system where the PM serves at the pleasure of the legislature. There's no such thing as a "vote of no confidence", at least at the federal level.

The one point with which I disagree is that a failed impeachment attempt will boost Biden's stature. It won't. It not only didn't help Al Gore (the last VP whose boss was impeached), it probably cost him (people were experiencing "Clinton Fatigue" in 2000. Without it, Gore would have probably won enough states to not need Florida.) And Biden is a fool. A Biden candidacy could (if the Republicans put up someone competent against him) could set the Democrats back as badly as Mondale did, impeachment or no. I can't even prove he'd succeed with an incumbent's advantage. Otherwise, this column is spot on. Impeachment won't work. Obama will beat it, and he'll get to play the victim for the next 3 1/2 years.

If your baby is inconvenient, kill "it." If your invalid, demented grandparent is inconvenient, kill "it." If we took the Left's charges of "bigotry" seriously, if they had any truth to them at all, the worst they could conceivably say about us is that we want to keep blacks from holding jobs or keep gays in the closet. Following on with the grand tradition of slavery, Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and the purges in communist countries, the Left continues its view that the politically inconvenient are not really human. We already know from the Terri Schiavo case that they want to allow the next of kin to call for "physician assisted suicide" if the patient is unable to make such a declaration (and has not done so in a living will) themselves. The saddest part is that unlike any of the above attrocities, the modern Left is committing its modern Holocaust against those who are truly helpless - the very young and the aged or infirm.

The biggest lie in all that is that Ehrlich was worried about PEOPLE starving to death. I'm willing to bet he used those scare tactics to encourage government to DO SOMETHING about population growth. Themselves and their "enlightened" ideological bretheren aside, environmentalists hate humans. In fact, the more devout the Gaia worshiper is, the more he hates humanity, human society, and human development. If they thought they could, environmentalists would likely work to reduce the population to just a few thousand like-minded individuals, (or maybe a few thousand of them and a few ten thousands of slaves to feed them, clothe them, and maintain their energy supply, from whatever source it was derrived.) You see it in their writing. The campaign against DDT, for example. Even now, after we find that Rachel Carson was either wrong or lying, there's still strong opposition to using DDT in malarial areas. Every once in a while, you'll see how environmentalists tell us that the growing human population is putting "pressure" on the environment. It is THEY who support all the free contraception in Africa. Do you think it has anything to do with AIDS?

More than likely. The late Steve Jobs, despite (or because of?) his wealth and his reputation as a successful big-business CEO, was a staunch Democrat. I expect that the current executives feel the same way.

You know why the Right cries "Foul" when Deomcrats do foolishness like this? Because we can - that is, because there will NEVER be a Cindy Sheehan on the Right - to dishonor her dead son's name for political purposes. George W. Bush would NEVER have paraded grieving survivors around to justify a political policy. And we KNOW the media would call him on it, because they accused him of using the tragedy of 9/11 to justify war in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Of course, 9/11 was legitimate provokation to go to war in Afghanistan, and inteligence developed during the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, as well as independently by other countries - including France - indicated precisely what Bush said it did.) In fact, the only victims of 9/11 we saw on TV were the ones whose grief was exploited to OPPOSE the war.

Conspiracy theories do nothing but dishonor the dead. They are also untennable mainly because there's always SOMEONE in the government who blows the whistle. Why do you think we know about Fast & Furious, IRS Targeting, DOJ stealing phone records, and the Benghazi falsehoods? Like everything else, the government can't even do coverups right.

Why did FEMA choose that date for an exercise? Why is the sky blue? Believe it or not, coincidence (that is, two, unrelated events happening in close proximity), does, on occasion, happen. That Obama hates guns is no secret. That he'd ALREADY USED A SIMILAR SHOOTING (in Arizona) to further that agenda is also in plain view. The men caught on video running from the scene were caught and questioned that day. And, please define "Super-charged with security measures." Most schools are. Is it possible that the security tapes are in Police Custody? Ever think of that?